[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",7311991,"mediaKeyId","5379837-26ce8d35f052f6b01ac3af153c0f2a32","parentId",5379837,"title","Board members debate timing and purpose of committee meetings; health-and-wellness committee’s role questioned","audioSeconds",438,"startMs",2742000,"endMs",3180000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5379837-26ce8d35f052f6b01ac3af153c0f2a32&start=2742&end=3180","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5379837-26ce8d35f052f6b01ac3af153c0f2a32/thumbnail_2742000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/7311991/New-Jersey/Board-members-debate-timing-and-purpose-of-committee-meetings-health-and-wellness-committees-role-questioned","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/7311991-833e14a463de4d5054f703f3bb8eb202/orig.mp4?Expires=1770895864&Signature=cJvuCAWv8jLl4dMXkAuiiXqo94IVX0ig12f~UMaRjFMc5dR3PifVf~wtXp8glDiK8MRv6DzdaNWEL~1Ozxgkc3yXPjs~RUItUnZ~MBIhnWLLFzf4Vtn0hcFEEisdi1UmXUao2TgnvZk39iRcQco7Z4GuGtkVppna2M6MY1dEj--gsTFggvcYBVBD7z1pFFlnCpu7Gb87CLCpyQAc1beoVBuXSC4HcO7Ua2Xmvc3-NK7x4dj3NBn1of1wJsMLGirXMCGn67vQqR0oPMZfOWBm6B-OMgh9l3sT875k55GlLhcTmfRmkbfyatKkf8rbSQ6cdks1LE3DsV-~opaEdcsQ4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ocean City School District, NJ","date","2025-01-02T16:44:50Z","article","Several Ocean City School District board members raised procedural concerns about committee scheduling and the role of the health-and-wellness committee, saying meetings held immediately before public meetings limit their opportunity to influence the superintendent’s draft agenda.

A board member told the group she had written to the board president and superintendent to object to committee meetings scheduled immediately before public meetings, arguing that timing “does not allow for effective board input to the superintendent in drafting the agenda.” She asked that committee meetings be scheduled at least a week before the superintendent’s draft agenda is finalized so members have adequate time to discuss items that might be placed on the public agenda.

Superintendent Dr. Angelo responded that agenda development is “the responsibility of the superintendent and the board president” but that individual board members may raise questions after an agenda is distributed. He said committee meetings have historically met both on the day of the public meeting and at other times, and that scheduling sometimes changes due to availability and personal circumstances. Dr. Angelo said the health-and-wellness committee functions more as an ad hoc committee created after the pandemic and that some topics that fall under health and wellness overlap with curriculum and student affairs.

Board members said they value committee meetings as a chance to examine district operations in more detail. Several suggested improving notice practices; Dr. Angelo said he would consider expanding an existing practice of sending an email with proposed agenda items a week to 10 days before committee meetings to all committees in the new year. Board reorganization in January (reorg) and the assignment of new committee chairs were cited as additional scheduling constraints.

The discussion did not result in a formal vote or a binding change to committee scheduling; board members said the issue will be discussed further and that logistics (chair availability, superintendent availability) will be considered when setting committee calendars.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ocean City School District BOE Meeting - 12/19/24","oneSentenceSummary","Board members asked that committee meetings not be scheduled immediately before public meetings, arguing such timing limits input; the superintendent said agenda development is the responsibility of the superintendent and board president and that some committees meet ad hoc.","taxTitle","Ocean City School District, School Districts, New Jersey","taxId",38851,"location","New Jersey","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6682238,"Ocean City board approves resolutions; some members object to $91,371.01 check",69,2592000,2661000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5379837-26ce8d35f052f6b01ac3af153c0f2a32&start=2592&end=2661","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5379837-26ce8d35f052f6b01ac3af153c0f2a32/thumbnail_2592000.jpg","/articles/6682238/New-Jersey/Ocean-City-board-approves-resolutions-some-members-object-to-9137101-check","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6682238-767ac4b23ff4fa76da9660c3f1ed0cba/orig.mp4?Expires=1770895864&Signature=fYwVL1Pgi97U2hNDeP-GOemwMUoe1mQLPUV4NiL4YRksibkY~tB2-JIt2B7J1lVoj8BhcHF8OZZuqsBccDhFsfU~uwdHoPF8BPaVPuHeziNMg6blXmaImQnaHGCoxe3X48q1Ce9a~i5OAZEty1GhRNFVExo~hcv48EEZ4YYi5PGepLIZ9ejb3blEL8Q9xihZIeowY4cyLeQACmHbs4FbhppgYKVkAZ-3y1p-7Q1JSb4haNEGWckzkivDF3vwNDt9W9Lxn5NZgsD1v4dcoI0JmmhHU3ypS0vr67I~JOs4xw5MiCr11q0-NNl3ErW0bTvAvObDvASachQkZo3IOYuChw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ocean City School District board approved its listed resolutions during the meeting’s roll-call vote. Several board members said they supported the package of items but registered objection specifically to one check, identified in the meeting as check number 201210 for $91,371.01.

Board President Barnes called for a motion and a roll call on the board resolutions. During the vote several members recorded “yes” votes for the full slate while noting exceptions for the single check. Miss Chisholm said she voted “yes to all except check number 201210 in the amount of $91,371.01.” Miss Emberger stated “all except item 1, check number 201210 in the amount of $91,371.” Miss Newman likewise said she voted yes except for that check. Other members recorded “yes” votes without exception during the roll call. The meeting record shows the package was approved.

The agenda materials presented to the board at the meeting did not include a line-item explanation in the transcript for check number 201210; speakers who objected asked for clarification of the payment. The board’s recorded statements indicate the motions passed despite the objections; no amendment or tabling was recorded in the meeting minutes provided in the transcript.

Later in the meeting, the Ocean City representatives’ subset vote (items specific to Ocean City representatives only) was moved and approved by roll call, with all recorded Ocean City representatives voting yes.

The board did not provide further public detail in the meeting about the purpose of check number 201210 or supporting invoices; several board members asked questions during the roll call. The transcript does not record a follow-up explanation or a separate vote specifically on that check during the meeting.

Board members and members of the public who spoke asked that future materials provide clearer backup documentation for large payments so members can review line-item details prior to voting.","The school board approved its slate of resolutions in a roll-call vote. Multiple board members recorded votes ‘yes’ on all items but objected to one payment (check number 201210) totaling $91,371.01; the full slate was approved.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6682244,"Ocean City public voices safety, legal and partisan concerns about Lifewise Academy; board says proposal not before it",4363,84000,4447000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5379837-26ce8d35f052f6b01ac3af153c0f2a32&start=84&end=4447","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5379837-26ce8d35f052f6b01ac3af153c0f2a32/thumbnail_84000.jpg","/articles/6682244/New-Jersey/Ocean-City-public-voices-safety-legal-and-partisan-concerns-about-Lifewise-Academy-board-says-proposal-not-before-it","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6682244-102d2642f8312dfcd6f3453711c82c3e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770895864&Signature=cTPNciE2oEIw~zBsXDcEoOoxEkSIvaMIwDKtEvekmJbR3l13HPZLW8KbuIVMbcuK3MfQG8ht5vnaAsTs1ks3CqyaCSNqQyN6eAEvKR1ZEfkbHyu53ANzzX2tEj9goOH~wvkX8EL8pt7hIPcNPLMT8Vqok7Q3K22rbzYQbaI3lJ7bZMWT1m9nDP-JPsCIINMgEeCsrnH53ZMG-OjMJTK29FTZuWyb~HA-qhY5tsnnjwSryHR0rMFJhc1esKm~DxcDgdQ1PNqp6b3CmW~4A7yQCswGo5Z127EaI7FtN6E40s9KkmlQUOOX7TcZOuywqostgfHTOWfq0gSmUTL6FkhSvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Ocean City residents urged the Ocean City School District to reject or scrutinize a program called Lifewise Academy, citing safety, legal and partisan concerns, during public comment at the board meeting.

The matter matters because Lifewise is described by speakers as a religiously affiliated, volunteer-run release-time program that would remove students from district supervision during instructional hours. Residents said that, if allowed, the program could create safety and liability risks for the district and raise constitutional issues about government endorsement of religion.

Board President Barnes said the proposal has not been presented to the full board. “The proposal for Lifewise Academy is not before the board and has never been before the board,” Barnes said during his president’s remarks, adding that proposals of that type are handled by the administration under the superintendent’s guidance.

Multiple speakers in the public-comment period directly challenged the program’s staffing, vetting and affiliation. Dr. Jean Marie Mason, who identified herself as a former public-school administrator and Ocean City resident, said Lifewise relies on volunteers “because very few are public certified teachers” and that background checks are handled by third-party vendors rather than the fingerprint- and FBI-based checks used for district employees. “This program ... puts our board at great risk,” Mason said, citing reports she said she collected from parents in Ohio and Indiana.

Christine Stanford, who said she lives in Upper Township, told the board she found examples where Lifewise participants met in a facility where “a felon convicted of attempted child assault works,” and said corporate oversight of local Lifewise chapters is thin. “The background checks are not on the same level as required by certificated teachers in New Jersey,” she said.

Ocean City resident and parent Nina Maron argued Lifewise’s staffing and curriculum do not match the district’s requirements for certification, training and safety. “Under Lifewise release time, the students will leave the school regulated premises to receive substandard supervision and exposure to unregulated curriculums,” Maron said, adding that transitions between district property and off-campus sites could expose the district to legal liability.

Andrea Meeves, who said she lives in Lower Township, framed the issue in constitutional terms. Citing the Lemon test from the 1971 U.S. Supreme Court case Lemon v. Kurtzman, Meeves said any program that permits religious instruction during school hours must be offered on equal terms for other religions, or risk violating the Establishment Clause. “In inviting Lifewise ... you would have to do it for all religions,” she said.

Caroline Cook, an Ocean City native, raised concerns about Lifewise founder and leadership networks, saying the program has ties to the Heritage Foundation, and urged the board to keep “partisanship out of our schools.”

Board members and administrators did not vote on Lifewise Academy during the meeting. Barnes reiterated that the district administration — led by the superintendent — is responsible for vetting and handling external program requests and said any formal proposal would be brought forward through those channels. No administration motion or timeline for such a proposal was presented at the meeting.

The public-comment speakers requested transparency about any contacts between Lifewise and district officials and demanded documentation on curriculum, staff vetting and transportation safety before the district would consider a partnership or release-time arrangement. The board’s public materials and the meeting record did not include a formal Lifewise contract, curriculum, or administrative recommendation at the time of the meeting.

Members of the public who raised concerns asked the board to clarify next steps and to require that any private program operating during school hours meet the same credentialing, background-check and safety standards that apply to district employees.","Residents challenged Lifewise Academy’s volunteer staffing, background checks, transportation and religious nature during public comment; board president said the program “has never been before the board” and that administration handles proposals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board members debate timing and purpose of committee meetings; health-and-wellness committee’s role questioned

Ocean City board approves resolutions; some members object to $91,371.01 check

Ocean City public voices safety, legal and partisan concerns about Lifewise Academy; board says proposal not before it